backtop


Print 44 comment(s) - last by HrilL.. on Feb 8 at 6:41 PM


F-15E fighters need radar upgrades
Basic programs like paying soldiers and maintaining aircraft are at risk

The U.S. Air Force is having a budgetary crisis right now that is starting to spill over into programs that need funding. According to some top USAF officials, the lack of budget means that paying soldiers and maintaining equipment and aircraft is becoming increasingly difficult.

Assistant Air Force secretary for financial management Jamie Morin said, "If we don't get some degree of relief, as the Congress continues its work, those will impose significant real implications on Air Force operations."

Currently the continuing resolution (CR) that the USAF is working under prohibits the awarding of new production contract and the production rates for equipment needed as well as new construction projects are hurting. The military personnel fund is $1.2 billion short and the operations and maintenance budget has a $4.6 billion deficit. 

General Philip Breedlove said in an email, "The current continuing resolution, which expires March 4, has negatively affected Air Force modernization programs. Production rate increases and new production -- which includes military construction -- have been prohibited. Additionally, our day-to-day operations are constrained. An extended [CR] further increases the pressures on our Air Force, and funding shortfalls in military pay and health care will affect training and readiness."

The Air Force is currently moving money around to be able to fund projects that need money now and delaying projects that won't need money until later in the year. However, Morin says that the ability to move money around by the Air Force is "running out of room to maneuver."

"You do this by robbing Peter to pay Paul; you find programs that don't need their money early in the year and you borrow from them and reprogram those resources into the programs that do need the money early in the year," Morin said. "Our ability to mitigate is basically fully used up now."

Several programs are being affected by the lack of budget according to officials. One of the programs is the upgrade for radar systems in the F-15E aircraft as well as upgrades to the F-15C. The radar in the F-15E is no longer made and parts are increasingly hard to find according to officials and the fleet is set for an upgrade. However, if the contract for the upgrade isn’t awarded this year the fighters may have to be grounded "down the road."

The USAF isn’t the only branch of the military that is facing budget issues and looking to get money from other programs. The Army has formally announced that it has decided to terminate the Class I Unmanned Aerial System and the Tactical and Urban Unattended Ground Sensors program. This is the program that had a stop work order issued back in January.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

money for what?
By TechIsGr8 on 2/7/2011 11:37:49 AM , Rating: 2
The USA spends more on military than the entire rest of the world combined. What has been the biggest use of this $500 billion a year of our tax money? They're fighting two wars against countries that never attacked the US. And what were the wars in response to? Some sort of mega weapon of death, some sort of WMD perhaps? Nope, 19 guys with box cutters. For all the carrying on that the "tea party" crazies do, why isn't this their cause celebre?




RE: money for what?
By Flunk on 2/7/2011 11:43:41 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe they can get some tips from China in saving money on R&D, cheating the servicepeople out of their paycheques shouldn't be an onption.


RE: money for what?
By TSS on 2/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: money for what?
By rcc on 2/7/2011 12:42:47 PM , Rating: 5
If China goes to war, we get to write off all that debt. : ) Problem solved.

Not that I'd want to see it. The world certainly doesn't need another war of any size. I just find it humorous that people think that the problems of debt only go one way.


RE: money for what?
By Samus on 2/7/11, Rating: -1
RE: money for what?
By rcc on 2/7/2011 1:23:03 PM , Rating: 3
Can we have it on your block???


RE: money for what?
By HrilL on 2/7/11, Rating: -1
RE: money for what?
By SunTzu on 2/7/2011 4:49:26 PM , Rating: 5
Aslong as your not one of the millions of dead, or the millions of people whos life was ruined by the war, sure.


RE: money for what?
By S3anister on 2/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: money for what?
By fteoath64 on 2/8/2011 3:15:16 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed!. If US goes to war with China and they use EMP weapons first, then you are getting this situation in the US. Meaning all military planes, trucks, ship, carriers, helicopters, etc will NOT work. Only M15 rifles will work and grenades but what use are these except to kill your own people ?. You will have 50% of US cities without power and this could easily mean a 30% population reduction within a year.
How many trillion dollars is this worth ?.


RE: money for what?
By erwos on 2/7/2011 1:13:13 PM , Rating: 4
"The numbers advantage"? Are you smoking something? The Chinese don't have the capability to launch an amphibious invasion of Taiwan, let alone actually steam across the Pacific and hit the west coast.

Real life ain't Civ 5, pal.


RE: money for what?
By cruisin3style on 2/7/2011 3:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I'm sure Congress would just sit by and not pass any funding bills if the Chinese invaded the US...


RE: money for what?
By HrilL on 2/7/2011 2:03:06 PM , Rating: 3
Someone has pay for all the R&D. China steals theirs so of course its cheaper than actually having to pay engineers to invent it. Also China's Budge is a lot higher than what they say it is. 80Billion for 2010? More likely its over 150Billion. Releasing the real numbers would scare the west even more..


RE: money for what?
By Pryde on 2/8/2011 12:29:11 AM , Rating: 2
and the fact that 80 billion in china would buy alot more manpower than 80 billion in the US


RE: money for what?
By HrilL on 2/8/2011 6:41:03 PM , Rating: 2
They also buy most of their materials from state owned companies that most likely don't make much if any profits from state owned to state owned companies or to the state itself.


RE: money for what?
By DougF on 2/7/2011 1:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
Must be nice to not have read or understand anything that's happened in the Middle East, or the world for that matter, over the past 21 years. The Taliban, who governed Afghanistan after the departure of the Soviets, actively supported Al-Qaida, including training, refuge, logistics, etc for their attack on the United States. Ergo, they helped attack our nation and are fully responsible for their conduct and the subsequent retaliation. As for Iraq,Saddam Hussein needed to go, but as with the vast majority of dictators, would not do so peaceably. After the Gulf War, Hussein has his forces fire DAILY upon US and Allied forces (check the records), routinely violated up to 14 resolutions from the United Nations (again, check the records), and was generally more of a pain than he was worth as a bulwark against Iran. Personally, I'd have done the entire thing in reverse-finish off the Taliban and any Al-Qaida we could get in the process, and THEN kick Saddam off his throne, but that's my personal preference.


RE: money for what?
By eggman on 2/7/2011 2:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
But was it worth all the lost American lives? I think not. Especially when you also count up the monetary cost and the fact that they will most likely end up with another dictator within this decade.


RE: money for what?
By Wererat on 2/7/2011 4:36:31 PM , Rating: 4
I would've finished the job right off instead of retreating when the Iraqis were in flight; I still hold that against Pres. Bush Sr.

At the least I would've supported Saddam's opposition instead of hanging them out to dry, be rounded up and killed as Pres. Clinton did.

Just goes to show ya; the longer you let a problem fester, the more expensive it is to fix.


RE: money for what?
By FoxFour on 2/7/2011 11:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just goes to show ya; the longer you let a problem fester, the more expensive it is to fix.

Sir Winston Churchill could offer some insight on this subject.


RE: money for what?
By Regs on 2/7/2011 6:54:28 PM , Rating: 2
I agree (start sarcasm meter). 3.4 percent of our output (GDP) is allocated to military spending. Compared to...lets say North Korea, that spends 16 percent of the output. How about China? They spend 4 percent of their GDP and have the buggiest surplus in the world.

500 billion? You are complaining about 500 billion? Are you sh**ng me? What about all the money you don't know where it's going? I would be more concerned over that.

STOP USING THE FAWKING ARM FORCES AS AN EXCUSE FOR THE LACK OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP TRACK ON WHAT YOUR CONGRESS IS SPENDING ON


RE: money for what?
By Jedi2155 on 2/7/2011 10:48:36 PM , Rating: 4
Its only 3.4 Percent if you don't count "Overseas Contingency Operations"

Taking into account all defense spending then you're talking about up to 10.2% of GDP. Relative to the US budget then you're talking about a whopping 38%!


RE: money for what?
By Regs on 2/8/2011 4:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
Correct - I can only say for what we spend on actual goods and services for our military (like planes). The overhead, mis management, and "other misc activities", are non-withstanding.

I believe some one brought up 9/11 as an example. And I do agree we handled security pretty poorly. We can't just keep throwing money at a problem hoping it to get solved. Proper management must be in place at all times.


Say huh?
By rcc on 2/7/2011 12:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, not to pick nits..... well, ok, yeah.

But, since when does the Air Force have soldiers. They have Airmen among other things, but soldiers? If it's a soldier it belongs to the Army. : ) Words used to have specific definitions, although this was more long term common usage, but today's language is just becoming a muddled mess.

This is a bit akin to the articles I see talking about the Battleships in the Navy. The Navy has no battleships. Just because a ship is designed for a combat role does not make it a battleship.




RE: Say huh?
By icemansims on 2/7/2011 12:44:32 PM , Rating: 3
Fuzzy language again....Battle Fatigue....Shell Shock....Combat Stress Reaction....

They are military personnel, ie soldiers. They are ships made for combat, ie battle, translation: battleships.

Just because it's not the term in vogue doesn't mean it's not accurate.


RE: Say huh?
By rcc on 2/7/2011 1:31:07 PM , Rating: 2
I could call a goat a sheep but I wouldn't be right.

Language, like most of our society, is being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Just because 80% of the people don't think that there is a difference between a Guided Missile Cruiser and a Battleship, doesn't mean there isn't one.

If you want to generalize because you don't know what something is, fine. Call it a warship. If I don't know what the bases are in baseball so I decide to call them home plates, does it cause confusion?


RE: Say huh?
By morphologia on 2/7/2011 3:11:37 PM , Rating: 5
It's a sad day when people defend lazy word usage and refer to the precise, correct definition of something as a "term in vogue." I know people think their opinions are sooo important that they don't have time for things like grammar, usage and correct terminology...but they are wrong.

Defending dumbed-down discourse hurts the species as a whole. We will not rise to the challenge of future achievement if all we do is dumb things down and make them easier.


RE: Say huh?
By 91TTZ on 2/7/2011 4:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
I agree totally.


RE: Say huh?
By Spookster on 2/7/2011 5:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
Every day our society becomes just one step closer to reflecting the society in the movie "Idiocracy".


RE: Say huh?
By DougF on 2/7/2011 1:42:32 PM , Rating: 4
As someone who spent 21+ years in the USAF, it does matter to us that we are called "airmen", not soldiers, sailors, or marines. That said, we get tired of constantly explaining these things to the non-military, so we tend to let it slip as not worth the argument or the "stunned mullet" look civilians tend to get when we do. It really gets our goat though, when journos who are "supposed" to do the basic research, often don't, or don't even have a basic working knowledge of the military while attempting to report on them.


RE: Say huh?
By rcc on 2/7/2011 3:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, what he said.


RE: Say huh?
By Spookster on 2/7/2011 5:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
As a former active duty Marine, when someone refers to me as a soldier or an ex-Marine I choose to always correct them. ;)


Bama and the other criminals are clueless
By Beenthere on 2/7/11, Rating: 0
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 2/7/2011 12:44:32 PM , Rating: 1
I see you are not clear on what is going on on Capitol Hill.

The republican congress is cutting the budget for all of the executive agencies, including the military, but not so much, so that they can point to Obama in 12 and characterize him as being ineffective. If he doesn't have a budget, he can't run the government. It isn't that Obama got a budget through that reduces funding to the military, it is that congress has refused to pass a budget (CR = continuing resolution = law passed after the republicans closed the federal government doing the same thing to Clinton, so now if no budget is passed, they continue on with operations expenses only until a budget is passed and don't close the government.)

So this is in no way a move by the executive branch to throttle its own military, it is a move by the legislative branch to throttle the executive branch. Its called "checks and balances."

So perhaps you should redirect your post at the legislature. Also, you might want to take a civics class.


By rcc on 2/7/2011 4:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, you might want to take a civics class.


As should you, if you really think we have a Republican congress.


RE: Bama and the other criminals are clueless
By FITCamaro on 2/7/2011 5:23:57 PM , Rating: 1
Conservative Republicans in the house are saying "We aren't passing a budget that continues the trend of huge deficit spending without a plan to fix it". They are not refusing to pass a budget. They are refusing to pass a bloated budget. Obama saying he's freezing spending with government spending up 50% is not a cut. Every government agency has gotten larger since Obama took office. Trying to peel that back is a good thing. Why do we need thousands of more government workers when there aren't people in the private sector to pay all their salaries. The EPA alone has had its budget rise 150%.

I applaud the conservative Republicans in the House for holding strong so far. And I hope they continue to do so. Tough times call for tough measures.


RE: Bama and the other criminals are clueless
By FaaR on 2/7/2011 5:49:29 PM , Rating: 3
Where were your conservative congress people when Bush was running deficit through the ceiling and no plan to fix it?

...Oh, that's right. They where right there, cheering him on.

Deficit only seems to be a bad thing when a democrat is in office. Funny thing, that... ;)


By FITCamaro on 2/7/2011 11:25:19 PM , Rating: 1
Most were not elected. Those that were were not in the majority.

Also the highest deficits Bush ran were in the $400 billion range.

You can argue that the wars were off budget, but that is always the case with wars. They are not budgeted expenses. And even with the wars, the deficits he racked up are already exceeded by the legislation the Democrats have pushed in 2 and a half years vs. the 8 Bush was in office. Furthermore, the biggest deficits Bush ran up were in the 2 years that the Democrats were in control of the House which controls the purse strings.

Biggest point though is past mistakes don't mean its ok to make future ones.


Don't worry
By NanoTube1 on 2/7/11, Rating: 0
RE: Don't worry
By FaaR on 2/7/2011 4:04:01 PM , Rating: 4
I'm sure you think you're being funny, but considering the US is already throwing more money than the next fifteen-ish biggest military spending countries all put together at your military, why the hell can't you make ends meet?

Your airforce doesn't need MORE money, it needs to WASTE LESS.

Simply stop wasting so damn much money! Then you can afford more. Oh, and kill all those lobbyists working for the military-industrial complex; you've already got the guns. Just put em to good use. That'd also save you billions in the first year alone.


Just mismanagement!.
By fteoath64 on 2/7/2011 11:46:57 AM , Rating: 4
And nobody has been able to find that 2.1 TRILLION dollars that Donald Rumsfeld said was missing the day prior to 9/11 ?.

Surely, one has to look into the banksters ...




Thank God
By Shark Tek on 2/7/2011 12:38:57 PM , Rating: 2
Thank God I wasn't selected when I was applying to become a AF Officer a few months ago. I pass every test AFOQT, physical, interview, etc. I go up to the Selection Board but I did't get selected. But my luck wasn't bad as I thought because a few weeks later I began working in another company with a pretty good salary.

Things aren't looking pretty in the AF.




RE: Thank God
By KakarotUSMC on 2/7/2011 1:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
If your grammar is any indication of your writing ability, then I'm not surprised you weren't selected for the program. There is a marked difference between being qualified and being competitive.


RIF
By ProsperoLT on 2/7/2011 4:06:13 PM , Rating: 2
I had a friend that was recently let go by the USAF via RIF (Reduction in Force).

It really sucks.




RE: RIF
By Wererat on 2/7/2011 4:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, with RIF is he eligible to re-up or go reserve or guard if a later opportunity opens up? Don't burn any bridges. (unless flying an A-10 heh)


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki